Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Last year, a giant of modern American political thought, William F. Buckley, Jr., passed away. Earlier this month, we lost another giant, Irving Kristol. Although their views of the Universe did not always mesh with ours, we respected their thought processes, and the fact they did not rigidly adhere to the positions of any particular party.

They had the ability to analyze each issue objectively and present their positions with clarity. Perhaps more importantly, they did not find the need to yell or scream, thus prompting more people to listen to their views. We were big fans.

David Brooks of the New York Times has written a column about the life of Mr. Kristol, and his thoughts are provided below. To give you some sense of Mr. Kristol, the following is a quote attributed to him:

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

David Brooks: Three Cheers for Irving Kristol

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

By David Brooks

“Irving Kristol was born into a fanatical century and thrust himself into every ideologically charged battle of his age. In the 1930s, as a young socialist, he fought the Stalinists. In the 1940s, as a soldier, he fought fascism. In the decades beyond, as a writer and intellectual, he engaged with McCarthyism, the cold war, the Great Society, the Woodstock generation, the culture wars of the 1970s, the Reagan revolution and so on.

“The century was filled with hysterias, all of which he refused to join. There were fanaticisms, none of which he had any part in. Kristol, who died on Friday, seemed to enter life with an intellectual demeanor that he once characterized as ‘detached attachment.’”

Rodak: We assume that by "activities," you are referring to his son's conservative views, as reflected in his writings and positions. Are you suggesting that a father should not express support of a son whose views differ from those of the father? Or are you suggesting that a father and son should have the same view of the world?

The main point which we wanted to get across through the review of this article was the following:

"He would champion certain causes. He could arrive at surprising and radical conclusions. He was unabashedly neoconservative. But he also stood apart, and directed his skeptical gaze even on his own positions, and even on the things to which he was most loyal.

'There are no benefits without costs in human affairs,' he once wrote. And so there is no idea so true and no movement so pure that it doesn’t require scrutiny. There was no position in this fallen world without flaws."

Rodak: We'll have to think about the notion that a father should the "denounce" the opposing political views of a son. Out of curiosity, does that also apply on the upstream, namely that a son should "denounce" the opposing views of a father?

Of course it does. Blood does not wash away moral responsibility. Simply apply that which Jesus had to say about family:

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 12:48-50 "He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Rodak: You are correct about our inability to fully understand your construct in its statement and application. However, that is obviously our failing, for which we take full responsibility, since you put the effort in to explain it. Perhaps one of our readers, who is more more enlightened than we, can take a shot at their understanding of your construct.

Let me ask a question, then: How can one assume that a family member is obligated to give moral sanction to words or actions that disinterested, objective parties would morally condemn (unless, of course, the family member also holds those views, and approves of those actions)?

Rodak: We (of little sophistication) must sadly admit that we still do not fully comprehend your construct. We were having significant difficulty with the use of the word "denounce," (which according to our dictionary is defined as follows: to condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible; to accuse formally), in its application to a parent-child relationship.

Now another concept has been introduced, namely the concept of "sanction." Our dictionary defines sanction as: authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid; support or encouragement; a consideration, influence, or principle that dictates an ethical choice.

It just seems to us that the mind does not naturally trend toward denouncement and sanctions in delineating the parameters of a parent - child relationship, at least not a relationship where the child is also an adult.

Respecting the values of others, even the values with which we have disagreement or about which we have concerns, seems to us to be implicit in the nebulous concept of "love" between a parent and a child.

The parent-child relationship of the Kristols, wrt public policy matters, however, is not a private thing. Both men actively seek to sway public opinion, as well as the forces of government. If the son, therefore, is advocating positions which would involve the entire nation in morally reprehensible policies, then the father should publicly denounce those policies, unless (as I said before) he agrees with them. I would have thought the bible quotes to be support enough on this issue.

Many of our readers are far brighter, more sophisticated, and better read than any of the Fellows associated with our organization, and consequently there are times when we have difficulty appreciating certain concepts espoused.

It appears that we misunderstood a particular aspect of your position. We never understood that you were limiting your construct to instances where both relatives or friends were in the media and positions of power and influence, capable of communicating their views to the general public. We thought that it was your view that your "denouncement of opposing views" construct was applicable to ALL relationships, public, private, and familial, and for that we must apologize.

We now understand (or at least we hope we understand) the "denouncement of opposing views" construct to be applicable to this particular fact situation involving two influential public figures, both of whom disseminated their messages through their writings, publications, speaking engagements, and appearances. (We're still not sure whether it is applicable to two relatives simply in the public eye, let's say an entertainer who makes statements about societal issues, and a professional athlete relative who does not, for example, and who are not in the full time business of influencing public policy.)

While we might not fully agree with you that the "denouncement" need be affirmative in nature, and be compelled by virtue of moral and ethical considerations, we do have some appreciation of the notion, if we now have it appropriately circumscribed.

No apology necessary. While the public face of the Kristols is certainly a special factor in their instances, I do also maintain that any father, confronted with his son's immoral words or actions, has the moral reponsbility to denounce those words or actions, and to do so publicly if that is warranted in a particular instance. One does no person, much less one's own son, any favors by supporting his bad behavior. Our responsibility--as human beings--is first and foremost to doing the good to the extent that doing the good is possbile for us. Again: blood does not trump morality.

"There Are More Than 2 Or 3 Ways To View Any Issue; There Are At Least 27"™

"Experience Isn't Expensive; It's Priceless"™

"Common Sense should be a Way of Life"™

Opportunity to Serve as "Guest Author"

This forum was designed to be YOUR forum for the civil exchange of ideas by people with all points of views. We welcome the submission of articles by all of our readers, as long as they are in compliance with our Guidelines contained in Post No. 34. We look forward to receiving your submissions.

About Me

Although there are other Fellows (namely the Logistician, the Laughingman, and the Optimizer) affiliated with the Institute for Applied Common Sense, I write the majority of the articles posted here.
I am someone who was fortunate enough to obtain a decent education and to travel extensively. I had all of the good breaks and luck in the world, and still managed to muck up and disappoint others who invested their faith in me.
Although I am obviously not a role model for others, I wish to share my insight (and that of the other Fellows) and experience so that others might not travel down the wandering, non-goal orientated, complicated path which I traveled. I am an individual who discovered, far too late in life, my purpose in the universe, and something about which I could feel passionate.
I do not want to see our youth, particularly college students, have to wait so long. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I am someone who accepts 110% responsibility for all that has occurred to me, and does not think of himself as a victim.

"Exploring the Relationship between Curiosity, Personal Responsibility, and Consequences" --

There's a positive side to mucking up. You have the opportunity to “fix it” and "do the right thing."

You can address it by taking personal responsibility for the events leading up to it.

Doing the right thing is not rocket science. Experience isn’t expensive, it’s priceless.

"Who is Encouraged to Participate in this Forum"

Solution-oriented individuals, particularly high school seniors and college students, who, unrestrained by political correctness, are willing to “dig deep” in an effort to understand and explore the underlying root causes of problems, rather than focus merely on the symptoms.

"It's Your Turn"

The “It’s Your Turn” ™ team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility. “It’s Your Turn” ™ will utilize adults who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory.

The goals of “It’s Your Turn” ™ are the following: (a) to provoke thought; (b) to encourage students to consider their choices in life; (c) to assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and (d) to have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. The ultimate goal of “It’s Your Turn” ™ is to assist students in coming up with fresh, new ways to address their personal and societal issues.

We believe that, “There are more than 2 or 3 ways to view any issue; there are at least 27.™”

One of the goals which the “It’s Your Turn” ™ Team will achieve, during our discussion of issues, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. The “It’s Your Turn” ™ Team believes that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of issues, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions.

The articles appearing on this site reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which the “It’s Your Turn” ™ Team will navigate students in our sessions.

“It’s Your Turn” ™ to have an influence on America

“It’s Your Turn” ™ to correct the mistakes of the past

“It’s Your Turn” ™ to start exercising a leadership role

“It’s Your Turn” ™ to take responsibility for your future

“It’s Your Turn” ™ to start making the hard decisions

Upcoming Events

“It’s Your Turn” ™ also has smaller, local projects, based on the same responsibility model, planned for late Summer.

During the Spring of 2015, we will conduct our first focus group, in the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina, with parents and college students, to assist in our further development of presentation. Additional sessions will be conducted in the Summer of 2015, throughout the Southeast. We will seek YOUR thoughts about the areas which YOU would like to have covered in our sessions on responsibility. The location of the first session shall be announced later.

During the Fall of 2015, “It’s Your Turn” ™ will conduct sessions about responsibility with college freshmen, and their parents. Parents and freshmen are obviously full of trepidation as the young adults leave the fold of home, and become truly independent for the first time in their lives.

Additionally, during the Fall of 2015, “It’s Your Turn” ™ will conduct similar sessions on numerous college campuses throughout the Southeast, during their Orientation sessions, and during periods designed for the involvement of parents.